Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015)
Extremely small and light on resources. Fast install, super-fast scan. Top marks in two independent lab tests. Perfect score in hands-on malware blocking test. Very good malicious URL blocking. Can control protected computers from Web console. Good phishing protection.
Cons Requires Internet connectivity for full protection.
Two independent testing labs have given Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015) their top ratings, and it earned a perfect score in our hands-on malware blocking test. Add the fact that it's the smallest antivirus around and you've got a definite Editors' Choice.
Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470312,00.asp
I recommend downloading and running Reimage. It's a computer repair tool that has been proven to identify and fix many Windows problems with a high level of success.
I've used it in the past to identify and fix everything from blue screens (BSOD's), ActiveX errors, corrupt files and processes, dll/exe/sys errors, recover lost memory, Windows update problems, defragging, malware removal etc.
You can download it direct from this link http://downloadreimage.com/download.php. (This link will automatically start a download of Reimage that you can save to your computer.)
Could Be Good
There's no question that Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) is the tiniest suite around, with the least impact on system resources. And it offers impressive antivirus protection, demonstrated by top marks in my own tests and independent lab tests.
However, it lacks a number of features found in most of its competition. There's no firewall, just extra support for Windows firewall. If you need spam filtering or parental control, this isn't the suite for you. But if your needs coincide with the features it does have, it can be a great fit.
Note: These sub-ratings contribute to a product's overall star rating, as do other factors, including ease of use in real-world testing, bonus features, and overall integration of features.
Parental Control: n/a
Great antivirus for people who aren't too prone to malware infections.Despite the $39.99 price tag.I'm using it right now & so far, I've got no complaints about it.
-Extremely low memory usage (Cloud AV)
-Minuscule disk usage
-Full scan takes less than 10 minutes
-Cloud AV (Lower detection rates)
-Poor 0-day malware protection
-Requires a constant internet connection to function properly
Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) is the tiniest antivirus around, and its installation and scanning are both super-fast. The mega-suite is slightly bigger, but it still takes about one tenth the disk space of the average suite. Read my review of the antivirus for full details. I'll simply summarize here.
None of the six independent labs I follow currently include Webroot in their regular testing, though Dennis Technology Labs will add Webroot in the first quarter of 2015. A private test by Dennis Labs earlier this year revealed that Webroot would have earned top-level AAA certification. Webroot was also one of just three product to pass in a test by MRG-Effitas.
Webroot's malware detection relies on a cloud service that analyzes program behaviors, not on antivirus signatures. On detecting an unknown process, Webroot starts journaling all its actions and watching for signs that it's malicious. If a process steps over the line, Webroot reverses all of its actions. Until a process gets the green light, irreversible actions like transmitting information to the Internet are suppressed.
I observed this feature in action; some of my malware samples initially seemed to get past the antivirus, but after a few minutes it started wiping them out. In the end it earned a perfect 10 points in my hands-on malware blocking test.
The suite also earned a very good score in my malicious URL blocking test. This test challenges each antivirus with 100... Read more
Actually there is no 2015 range of Webroot products, only Neil J. Rubenking seems to think that. I don't think Webroot releases even work that way.
McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015
Pros - Good scores in independent lab tests and our hands-on tests. New high score in malicious URL blocking. Website rating, with details. Numerous bonus features.
Cons - Phishing detection rate less than Chrome or Firefox alone. Firewall does not stealth ports in all cases. Most of the product's 12 services could be disabled by malware.
Bottom Line - McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 earns a new top score in our malicious URL blocking test, and it gets good ratings from the independent labs. It comes with a raft of useful bonus tools, though the bonus firewall seemed a bit wobbly in our testing.
Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2469309,00.asp
i have red the review a few hours ago and the most disturbing thing for me is that mcafee can't protect it's self from malware.also the firewall isn't good but you can always use windows built in firewall.if they improve those components i believe more people will trust them because some components are very good such as web blocking(site adviser)
During a full antivirus scan, G Data reports both time elapsed and time remaining. At one point, the sum of those two times exceeded 80 minutes. However, the scan actually completed in 48 minutes. That's a good bit longer than the current average of 28 minutes to scan a clean system. Some antivirus products speed subsequent scans by skipping known safe files. Comodo Antivirus 8, for example, re-scanned my test system in less than two minutes. Not G Data; a repeat scan took just as long.
Good Malware Blocking
When I exposed G Data to a folder containing my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out most of them right away, and eliminated a few more when I tried to launch them. One way or another, G Data detected 93 percent of the samples and scored 9.3 of 10 possible points. Few products have scored better in this test, though Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did manage a perfect 10.
As always, I also checked the product's reaction to a folder containing modified versions of the same samples. Each of the modified samples has a different filename and file size from the original, and a few non-executable bytes are also different. G Data didn't immediately recognize 22 percent of the samples whose originals were wiped out on sight. Interestingly, it did recognize several modified files whose originals weren't caught until I tried to launch them. Clearly there are multiple levels of protection going on here.
G Data blocked access to 45 percen... Read more
thanks for the share petrovic !!
In addition to checking scores with the major testing labs, I put each antivirus through hands-on testing. I start by opening a folder containing a collection of malware samples. The simple access that occurs when Windows Explorer gets file information for display was enough to trigger AVG's real-time protection. It detected 72 percent of the samples on sight and offered to remove them.
Next, I launched the samples that weren't wiped out immediately. Overall, AVG detected 79 percent of these samples and earned 7.8 of 10 possible points. That's definitely on the low side, but I give significantly more weight to the independent lab tests. My own malware-blocking test serves mostly to give me hands-on experience with each product's way of handling real-time protection.
One feature of AVG's Web TuneUp browser extension is Site Safety, which promises to warn you before you visit a "risky or dangerous website." Apparently Site Safety doesn't apply to URLs that point directly to malware programs; Site Safety didn't kick in at all during my malicious URL blocking test. However, of the 100-odd newly reported malicious URLs I tried, the real-time protection component wiped out 54 percent. That's better than the current average of 41 percent.
McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 holds the top score in this test, with 85 percent of the URLs blocked. Avast managed a respectable 72 percent.
Unusual Phishing Protection
Phishing we... Read more
Malicious URL Blocking
Thanks to a real-time feed supplied by MRG-Effitas, I have access to a continually updated list of malicious URLs. I use these to check how each antivirus product handles extremely new threats. Does it block access to the URL, wipe out the downloaded malware, or just sit there doing nothing?
Bitdefender completely blocked access to 18 percent of the live malicious URLs I used for testing, but didn't wipe out any of the downloads that got through. It might well have caught those on launch, but that's not what this test measures. I've run two dozen products through this test so far, each with URLs no more than four hours old. The average protection rate is 33 percent, almost twice what Bitdefender managed. I'll be interested to see how Norton AntiVirus (2014) and Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2014) do when it's their turn for this test.
Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart
Good Malware Blocking
I rely more and more on the independent labs for in-depth antivirus testing, but I always need to do my own hands-on testing, to get a feel for the product's protection. To start, I opened a folder containing my just-gathered new set of malware samples. Bitdefender quickly and quietly wiped out 83 percent of those samples.
Next I launched the remaining samples and noted the antivirus's reaction. It completely missed several, ending up with an overall detection rate of 86 percent and an overall score of 8.... Read more
For some antivirus products, the minimal file access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is sufficient to trigger real-time protection. Avast waits until just before a program executes to run a real-time scan. In testing, it wiped out almost 80 percent of my malware samples immediately on launch.
Avast detected most of the remaining samples at some point as they attempted to install and run. In a couple of cases, it activated a powerful analysis tool called DeepScan. Avast also invoked DeepScan to make sure that a couple of my malware-testing programs weren't themselves malicious.
In one case, fortunately the last sample I tested, Avast requested a boot time scan for complete cleanup. That scan took almost an hour, and required my attention every so often to make decisions about the disposition of particular malware traces. You can launch a boot time scan at will, if you suspect the regular scan has missed something.
One way or another, Avast detected 93 percent of my samples, the same asF-Secure Anti-Virus 2015. However, because Avast allowed installation of some executable malware traces, its final score came out to 9.0 points, while F-Secure managed 9.3. The absolute winner among products tested with this sample set is Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015), which earned 10 of 10 possible points.
Avast's previous edition was among the first products exposed to my malicious URL blocking test. For many, many months, its... Read more
To get a feel for the program's protection, I challenged it with my collection of malware samples. Its real-time protection kicked in the moment I opened the sample folder, quickly eliminating 66 percent of the samples. Note, though, that F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 wiped out 83 percent of those same samples on sight.
Next, I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre. In several cases it reported the sample or one of its components as suspicious, in some cases with the warning "Please do not open this file unless you trust its source." That seems a bit weak to me?a user could accidentally choose to run malware detected in this way. I made sure to avoid that error.
With 89 percent detection and 8.7 points overall, Trend Micro is just behind F-Secure among products tested with this same malware collection. Note, though, that I give greater weight to ratings from the independent labs than to my simple hands-on test.
Trend Micro's Smart Protection Network gathers telemetry from millions of computers. Among other things, it identifies malware-hosting websites, and instructs your local antivirus to prevent access to those sites. Based on my testing, it really works. The test starts with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I simply launch each URL and note whether the product blocks URL access, eliminates the download, or does nothing.
Trend Micro detected 80 percent of the samples, almost all of them at th... Read more
Read other 1 answers
Very Good Malware Blocking
As with SuperAntiSpyware Professional 6.0, Panda's on-access scanning doesn't spring into action until you attempt to execute a file. Unlike SuperAntiSpyware, Panda did a good job blocking malware at launch. It deleted three quarters of the samples before they could execute.
A few of the samples did manage to launch; Panda caught some of those later in the process. Its detection rate of 86 percent is tied with Bitdefender for the best detection rate among products tested with my current sample set. Panda's overall score of 8.0 can't beat Bitdefender's 8.3 points, but it's better than the rest of the current group, includingKaspersky Anti-Virus (2015)'s 7.9 points.
Panda Free Antivirus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart
You'll note in the chart that AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014 and various others tested with my previous malware collection made a significantly better showing. That was a different set of samples, though, and the independent testing labs give very good scores to Panda, Kaspersky, and Bitdefender.
As part of my testing, I installed about 20 PCMag utilities. Panda's behavior-based malware detection identified a temporary file created by one of them as malicious, though when I looked at the detailed log it merely said "suspicious." I submitted the file to VirusTotal, to be sure it wasn't actually infected. All of the 53 antivirus engines hosted on VirusTotal gave it a clean bill of health... Read more
Does it differ from Panda Cloud Free?( I mean ,Are they two seperate products or this one is the new follower?)
So-so Malware Blocking
Last year Avira earned an impressive score in my hands-on malware blocking test, with 97 percent detection and 9.7 of 10 possible points. Not this year.
When I opened a folder containing my current collection of malware samples, Avira wiped out 72 percent immediately. That's good, but Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 at BitDefender, F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015, and ThreatTrack Vipre Antivirus 2015 all managed 83 percent.
I also tested Avira using hand-modified versions of the same sample set. For each file, I changed the name, appended nulls to change the file size, and tweaked some non-executable characters. Avira missed three of the tweaked files. However, it detected another two tweaked files whose originals it missed. I can't explain that.
After launching all of the remaining samples, I evaluated how well Avira handled them. Overall, it detected 76 percent of the malware samples and scored 7.4 points, quite a drop from last year.
Good Malicious URL Blocking
In the real world, you're more likely to encounter a brand-new malware attack via a malicious or compromised website, so I test for that ability as well. I start with a feed of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. After filtering out those that don't point directly to malicious executables, I try loading each one in a browser to see what (if anything) the antivirus will do.
Quite a few of the URLs were already defunct, despite being no more than four hours... Read more
Avira need to put some more effort because the competition is pretty high
Hello everyone. I've always been using ESET. Now I just got a 180-day key from a Giveaway for Webroot Antivirus. I just installed it in order to give it a try. Well, performance is much more better than ESET (few MB compared to 120, kind of). What's your opinion about that?.
I do have a Surface pro 4, i5, 8GB RAM. I know it would bear ESET, but I'm actually intreseted in performance - it's still a tablet actually. Do you have some On-Demand scanners that may repair to the cloud-engine only? thanks in advance.
PS: My Surface is not ALWAYS connected to the internet... 90%..
The highest level of Heuristics behavior blocker of Webroot will act like a whitelisting app, which ciuld help very much when offline.
Definitely a Contender
Bitdefender's antivirus technology routinely earns excellent scores from the independent testing labs, though it didn't do quite as well in my hands-on malware blocking test. It holds the top score in my phishing protection test, and its parental control system works across multiple Windows and Android devices. If its strengths match your needs, it can be a very good choice. However, it's not going to unseat Norton Internet Security (2014) as PCMag's security suite Editors' Choice.
This suite builds on the antivirus protection found in the standalone G Data Antivirus 2015. Please read that review for full details regarding the testing that I've summarized below.
West Coast Labs certifies G Data's technology for virus detection, and it received VB100 certification in all of the recent Virus Bulletin tests that included it. In the latest test by AV-Test Institute, G Data received 6 of 6 possible points for protection against malware and totaled 16 of 18 possible points. That's good, but Kaspersky Internet Security (2015) at Amazon and Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 scored a perfect 18. The other labs that I follow don't include G Data.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, G Data earned a respectable 9.3 points, beating almost all programs tested using the same malware collection. F-Secure Internet Security 2015 also managed 9.3 points, while Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) swept the field with a perfect 10 points.
G Data also fared well in my malicious URL blocking test. When exposed to 100 newly discovered malware-hosting URLs, it prevented 51 percent of the downloads, in most cases by blocking the browser from all access to the URL. The current average protection rate for this test is 40 percent.
The product's accuracy at blocking malware-hosting URLs didn't quite carry over into blocking fraudulent (phishing) websites. In this test, G Data's detection rate was 34 perc... Read more
Avast's lab test scores range from best to worst. It received AAA-level certification fromDennis Technology Labs and rated Advanced+ in two tests by AV-Comparatives. However, "crazy many" false positives caused it to fail the file detection test from that same lab. Bitdefender and Kaspersky generally take top scores across the board.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avast earned 9.0 of 10 possible point, better than most products tested using this same malware collection. Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015)earned a perfect 10 in this test.
My malicious URL blocking test uses newly-discovered malware-hosting URLs, typically no more than four hours old. When I challenged Avast with about 100 of these, it blocked all access to 29 percent at the URL level and eliminated another 43 percent during download, for a total block rate of 72 percent. That's quite good, though McAfee Internet Security 2015 managed to block 85 percent.
Good, Not Great
Avast Internet Security 2015 offers almost all of the expected suite components (parental control is the exception), but their effectiveness varies. I like the innovative home router scan; this is an area that most vendors overlook. And Avast offers plenty of other bonus features. The problem is, top suites just do a better job overall.
Parental Control: n/a
Malicious URL Blocking
The big difference between F-Secure's suite and the standalone antivirus is the addition of browser protection. This component blocks access to malware-hosting URLs, and it did well in testing.
I started with a collection of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas, none of them more than four hours old. Some had already vanished, but I kept launching them one after another until I had results for 100 still-working URLs.
F-Secure blocked an impressive 73 percent of the malicious URLs. Only Trend Micro Internet Security 2015 at Trend Micro and avast! Internet Security 2014 at Avast have done better, with 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively.
F-Secure's standalone antivirus lacks browser protection, but it did manage to wipe out 34 percent of the malicious payloads during or immediately after download. That's just slightly better than the average blocking rate among current programs.
So-So Phishing Detection
The browser protection component also serves to steer users away from visiting phishing sites?fraudulent sites that attempt to steal login credentials. However, it wasn't nearly as effective as it was against malware-hosting URLs.
I started by collecting suspected phishing URLs from various sites. Then I launched each simultaneously on five test systems. Naturally one test system relied on F-Secure's protection. Another used Norton Internet Security (2014) at Amazon. The remaining three relied on the b... Read more
F-Secure is good, but it's quite expensive for an antivirus that offers fewer components, better use Emsisoft, Norton or Kaspersky.
Good Malware Blocking
F-Secure also performed well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my standard collection of malware samples, the software wiped out 83 percent of them right away. By contrast, Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015$39.99 at Trend Micro detected just 66 percent of the same samples on sight.
I keep a second set of samples on hand, tweaked versions of my main collection. For each file, I change the name, append nulls to make the file size different, and modify a few non-executable bytes. Considering just the ones whose originals it did detect, F-Secure's real-time protection failed to recognize over 40 percent of the modified versions.
When I launched the few remaining samples, F-Secure's DeepGuard behavioral detection kicked in and blocked one as harmful. Overall, F-Secure detected 93 percent of the samples and earned 9.3 points, better than almost all products tested with this malware collection.
F-Secure's standalone antivirus doesn't include browser protection?that feature is reserved for the full security suite. In my malicious URL blocking test, which relies on a feed of very new malicious URLs from MRG-Effitas, F-Secure did wipe out 36 percent of the downloaded files. That's a bit better than the current average of 32 percent. Trend Micro has the current high score for this test, with 80 percent blocked, almost all of them at the URL level.
When F-Secure's cloud database can... Read more
Looking good to me! As a second demand scanner one a week.
Online Scanner F-Secure:
Shared Antivirus Features
The antivirus component in this suite is almost the same as the free Avira Antivirus 2015. The main difference is that the free edition relies on a browser plug-in for detecting malicious and fraudulent websites, whereas the Pro edition filters such sites below the browser level. That's an important distinction, because the free edition doesn't currently offer a plug-in for Internet Explorer.
Avira doesn't participate in testing with all the independent labs I follow, but those that do test it generally give it good ratings. The only significant exception is a poor score in a test by AV-Test Institute that specifically measures the ability of an antivirus product to completely clean up a detected malware infestation.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avira didn't fare so well. With 76 percent detection and an overall score of 7.4 points (out of a possible 10), it's near the bottom.Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) earned the best score of products tested using my current malware collection; it managed a perfect 10.
As noted, the suite and free antivirus use different components to detect and block malware-hosting URLs, so I expected to see differing result in my malicious URL blocking test. Despite different styles of malicious URL detection and a completely different (but very new) set of test URLs, the two products earned almost identical scores, for a protection rate of 58 percent. That's... Read more
Baloney. I used Avira to clean up an infected computer that was running Webroot. LSS, I don't have faith in this review.
ThreatTrack Vipre Internet Security 2015
Pros - Good score in our malicious URL blocking test. Automatically applies security patches to browsers and important programs. Simple spam filter settings; accurate spam detection.
Cons - Fair to poor ratings from independent labs. Dismal antiphishing. Firewall failed some basic functions. Advanced firewall functions interfere with normal operation. Firewall easily disabled. More performance impact than most suites.
Bottom Line - The best part of ThreatTrack Vipre Internet Security 2015 is its spam filter. The antivirus and firewall components, more important overall, didn't perform as well in our testing.
Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2471672,00.asp
When I challenged Trend Micro to protect a virtual machine test system from my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out 66 percent of them on sight. It whacked quite a few more when I tried to launch them. Its detection rate of 89 percent and overall score of 8.9 put it in between F-Secure Internet Security 2015 and Bitdefender Total Security 2015.
I tested the product's ability to block malicious URLs using newly-discovered URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. When initially tested, Trend Micro's 80 percent blocking rate for malicious URLs was a new high score. However, a few days later it was deposed by McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015, which blocked 85 percent. Both scores are impressive, given that the current average is 32 percent.Symantec Norton Security, tested simultaneously with Trend Micro, managed to block 51 percent.
A full scan of my standard test system took just 20 minutes. Because Trend Micro avoids re-scanning files already found to be safe, a repeat scan finished in less than a minute.
Trend Micro's impressive handling of malicious URLs also carried over to my test of its phishing protection ability. Its detection rate lagged just 4 percentage points behind that of Norton. Very few products come close to Norton's fraud detection rate.
Small Performance Hit
I wondered whether the additional installation of the password manager, safe browser, vault, and especially SafeSync would make this suite more of a resource eater than Trend Micro... Read more
Thanks for the info. How good is PCMag in-terms-of antivirus testing?
Decent Malware Blocking
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Comodo scored 8.3 points out of a possible 10. That puts it on par with McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 and just a hair behind Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015. Panda Free Antivirus 2015 earned 8.0 points in this test. However, Panda received excellent ratings from many of the labs, and I weight those scores higher than my own simple hands-on testing. Quite a few products, Avast Free Antivirus 2015among them, have detected all the tweaked samples.
Interestingly, all of Comodo's malware detection occurred the instant I opened my folder of samples. It quickly and silently wiped out 83 percent of the samples, without bothering to announce what it had done. When I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre, it didn't actively block any of them.
I also exposed Comodo to a folder containing hand-modified versions of the same malware samples. I tweaked some non-executable bytes in each sample, and also changed each file's name and size. I was quite surprised to find that my simple tweaking prevented Comodo's signature-based detection system from recognizing more than half of the samples. This might suggest that its signatures need to be more open-ended and less restrictive.
Poor Blocking of Malicious URLs
Of course, in the real world you're very unlikely to simply open a folder containing malicious programs. If you encounter a malware attack, it will most likely come through a malic... Read more
Excellent Malicious URL Blocking
I've been running my malicious URL blocking test since last November. I start with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I filter out those that don't point directly to malicious executables and then try launching each URL. Even though they're typically less than four hours old, many are already MIA. For the URLs that still work, I note whether the antivirus blocks access to the site entirely, blocks the malicious download, or does nothing.
avast! Free Antivirus 2014 was one of the first products to undergo this test, and for many, many months its blocking rate of 79 percent remained the top score. In the last couple weeks, that score has been thrashed repeatedly. Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015 blocked 80 percent, a new high score. But just days later, McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 leapt into first place with 85 percent.
ESET blocked access to 32 percent of the URLs and prevented malware download for another 49 percent. Its total blocking percentage of 81 percent doesn't beat the record, but it's respectably in second place.
Average System Scan
ESET defaults to what it calls Smart Scan for malware. I had to dig deep to find a way to launch an in-depth scan. I thought the scan was going to be quick, because the progress bar filled almost to the end in just a few minutes. However, it sat there at almost-done for quite some time. In the end, it took 26 minutes, precisely the current average.
It did repo... Read more
Who believes this PCmag review fellows? According to them AVG is the best;their reviews are far away from reality.Our friend @Manzai has better review with proof..............
Excellent scores from independent labs. Scores from very good to superb in our hands-on tests. Effective ransomware protection. Many bonus features including password manager, secure browser, and file shredder.
Full antivirus scan took longer in testing than most competitors.
Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2017 combines top-scoring antivirus protection with so many bonus features it would almost qualify as a security suite.
...more in the link above
Every years it is the same story "BD is top because blablabla... "
Effective Malware Blocking
Panda scored very well in my hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my current malware sample collection, it didn't do anything immediately. That's because Panda waits for a significant event like file creation or modification; it doesn't scan just because a process accessed the file. When I copies the collection to another folder, Panda got to work, quickly wiping out 86 percent of the samples.
It also caught some of the remaining samples when I launched them. Overall, it detected 89 percent of the samples and earned 8.8 points, the same as Kaspersky. Among products tested with this same collection, Trend Micro has the best scores, with 93 percent detection and 9.1 points.
Results from tests with my previous malware collection aren't directly comparable, of course, but you have to appreciate what Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did with that bunch. It detected 100 percent of the samples and earned a perfect 10 points.
My malicious URL blocking test doesn't rely on a pre-set collection of samples. Rather, I take the very newest list of malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas and attempt to download real-world malware samples. The antivirus gets credit for blocking access to the URL or for wiping out the file during or immediately after the download. I keep at this test until I have results for 100 very new malicious URLs.
As I proceeded with the test, Panda's stats stayed remarkably... Read more
I should not provide any questions for Panda cause they have already identical two flip side of a story in the test.
One is independent organization test and user based test.
New version of ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus+ was tested by pcmag.com.
Results: Editor rating: excellent
Tough, effective two-way firewall. Antivirus protection licensed from Kaspersky. Free. Several useful bonus features.
Hardly any results from independent testing labs. Doesn't include every feature of Kaspersky antivirus. No phishing protection. Behavioral detection flagged both good and bad programs.
ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus+ combines a top-notch firewall with antivirus protection licensed from award-winning Kaspersky. This free program can be a good choice if you don't want a full-scale security suite.
For more go to Check Point ZoneAlarm Free Firewall 2017
How in the heck do you uninstall this. Have done everything they say and it is still on my computerEdit: Moved topic from Windows 7 to the more appropriate forum. ~ Animal
Hi there,You will need to remove the device from the list of devices protected by Webroot SecureAnywhere after uninstalling it as well.These instructions can be of use - Good luck!Read other 2 answers
Hello all,I think I read somewhere that Webroot SecureAnywhere can be run alongside other AVs similar to MBAM or EAM.However WSA in my mind has always been an AV, and thus is not recommended to use alongside another AV.Can somebody clarify this?Thank you.Regards,Alex
From what I read back then, Webroot Security Anywhere is designed to run "alongside existing Antivirus to complement it and add protection", but I cannot find anything about that right now on their website. I'll keep on looking.Read other 9 answers
CNET gave this software a fantastic review, anyone using this?
I was part of the beta testing, then I ran the stable version for a few weeks too. It is by far, the lightest security solution that I have ever used. It runs two processes totaling about 3MG's of RAM. The machine is as snappy as with no AV installed.
That being said, I personally did not test its protection abilities because I ran it on a real test machine, and not a virtual one. I have seen some independent tests and it ranks somewhere around avast! Free in terms of detection. Other tests have shown it worse, and of course other tests have shown it better. If it were cheaper, I would think about running it, but it's way too expensive for my taste.
AV Comparatives Oct 2011: Whole Product Dynamic "Real World" Test - Graph Bar
Does anyone have an opinion on this product, which I understand is a combination of the previous version and Prevx? I saw a rave (100% protection and detection) review on PC Mag, so I got a trial version of it. Thus far, it hasn't really impressed me.The scan was touted as being super-fast - just a few minutes - but on my Windows 7 system it took a lot longer than that, and it didn't even scan every file! I'm not sure if scan speed is connected to Internet connection speed, which might explain it since it's a cloud-based AV.MSSE, AVG 8.5 Pro and Comodo AV 2011 all were able to detect many more resident processes and infected files than WR has, and WR makes it supremely difficult to customize control of scans to the level I prefer - I cannot select "scan everything".The user interface (settings, etc.) leaves something to be desired. Things that other products include are not available in the settings.The quarantine is a fixed-size window with fixed-length columns and it doesn't allow you to see the full file/path name, nor does it name the infection type. In fact, other than the filename and incomplete path, it only shows the date and time of action.The threat log is a bit more verbose, but it doesn't explain why something was quarantined/removed (threat type). It removed some domains from my registry (I'm not sure where they came from) that looked to be pornography sites.While I was running Panda ActiveScan 2.0 (online) it actua... Read more
I thought I would add this feedback about WR.
Several days ago, I received an email from them asking me to fill out a survey. But, when I clicked on the link - the same day - the survey was closed. That makes me wonder about them. I did email them with some feedback about the product, but received no response.
Today, I received an email that linked to a 1-question survey about how likely I'd be to refer to their product on a 1-10 scale. It did work.
I just recently bought a HP ENVY Touchsmart laptop model m7-j010dx with 4th gen I7-4700MQ (2.4 GHz) & 16Gb of RAM. I have been running Norton Internet Security for the last several years with excellent results. But I decided to go for the paid real time version of Malwarebytes. I love it as it has stopped many unsafe sites from loading. Problem is that Norton keeps sending me messages to uninstall Malwarebytes due to conflicts between the two. I'd rather leave Malwarebytes running real time and replace Norton if necessary.
Best Buy suggested a copy of Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security that I have tried replacing NIS with. Webroot began to immediately pick up apparent false positives on 2 different occasions. They appeared to be false positives, uNorton NIS, Malwarebytes and SuperAntispyware all said they were good safe files. When Using Webroot to screen downloaded files in a split second with no processes checked. On other files checked it would stall right in the middle of checking the file and never finish. Webroot on demand screens were completed in 2.5 minutes (I can't believe this is really a comprehensive scan). My impression of Webroot is that it is the worst anti-virus software I have ever used and I have 0% faith in it.
Since this is a new machine and I want to start out with a perfectly clean machine I did a 100% clean of all of the hard drive space then reloaded Windows 8 from the recovery directory on the hard drive. This time I loaded NI... Read more
Are you seeing any actual conflicts between Norton and Malwarebytes or just getting messages?There were some issues between Norton 360 and Malwarebytes posted these instructions in order to aid in compatibility.If there are actual conflicts you can report this issue to the Malwarebytes Support Team, ask in the Support Forums or E-mail the Malwarebytes Support Help Desk so the development team can investigate.Although Symantec (Norton) is as good as any other well known anti-virus program, it requires numerous services and running processes that consume system resources and often results in complaints of high CPU usage. Anti-virus software components insert themselves deep into the operating systems core and create files/folders/registry entries in various locations. I have read from other users that Symantec has improved the newer versions while others say differently. However, Symantec products can be difficult to remove and remnants are often left behind which require the use of a special removal tool, otherwise you may encounter problems installing a replacement anti-virus. To be fair, other vendors are also using removal tools for the same reason. Those issues plus the cost factor are the primary reason many folks look for a free alternative.I have never used Webroot but they have had a good reputation over the years.For other alternatives, you may want to read Choosing an Anti-Virus Program.BTW, I'm moving this topic to a more appropriate forum.Read other 5 answers
Don't install Webroot SecureAnywhere, currently as of Jul 2016. There is a remote admin tool exploit for it. Uninstalling it won't help you, because antivirus programs have supreme rights in a system, and the attacker can install and hide things anywhere on your box. If you just purchased it and got attacked, you will have to perform a reinstall of Windows.
Read other 7 answers
Webroot SecureAnywhere delivers complete protection against viruses, spyware, and other online threats without slowing down computer performance or disrupting your normal activities. With its fast scans and one-click threat removal, you can rest assured that malware is eliminated quickly and easily. Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus uses a radically new cloud-based approach to online security that protects you against the latest threats as soon as they emerge. And it does so at blazing fast speeds, scanning your entire PC in about 2 minutes.
Blocks viruses, Trojans, spyware, rootkits, and other malware threats
Lightest, fastest antivirus for 2014 scans your entire PC in about two minutes
Stops unknown threats based on suspicious behavior
Continually updates itself so it's always current and you don't have to download updates
Prevents malicious programs from changing your security settings
Runs scans automatically or schedules them to run whenever you want
Webroot SecureAnywhere 220.127.116.11 changes:
Simplified and automated the process to switch from one specific build to another.
Enabled Suppression of certain tray messages once the message is acknowledged (closed or button pressed).
Cloud detection logic.
Detection and remediation of malware running in memory.
Download: Webroot SecureAnywhere 18.104.22.168 | 801 KB (Shareware)
View: SecureAnywhere Website | Release Notes
I know Webroot has improved dramatically... yet, I am not totally convinced of its overall protection.
It seems to be a mixed bag.
In any case, if Webroot can continue to improve... especially whatever behavioral monitor it is using, it could eventually be one of the "top dogs."
Wait and see.
-Android 5.0 support
Webroot SecureAnywhere Mobile v.22.214.171.12443 - new
Download Webroot SecureAnywhere Mobile: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.webroot.security
Download Webroot SecureAnywhere Mobile Premier:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.webroot.security.full
Changes in Webroot SecureAnywhere Mobile 126.96.36.19943:
Android 5.0 support
Webroot SecureAnywhere Mobile is an advanced Android security app for smartphones and tablets. (FREE) Anti-virus, Internet security and identity protection for Android smartphones and tablets.
Features secure web browsing, locates your Android smart phone if it?s lost or stolen/automatically scans apps/files, blocks malware/phishing, SMS spam and more.
Webroot SecureAnywhere Mobile protects your identity and personal information.
Android antivirus block smobile threads before they infect your phone and keeps your device secure without interruptions.
For other security features and Premier protection against malicious threats, check out Webroot SecureAnywhere Mobile for Android in the Android Market.
avast! continues its series of updates and enhanced antivirus software solutions by delivering streamlined GUIs and several brand-new protection features. avast! Free Antivirus 2015 is one of the products from the antivirus editions (Pro, Internet Security and Premier) that comes with an updated interface and fresh features.
It gives you control over your home network security, supports HTTPS scans for malware and threats, as well as lets you activate a smart scan which looks for threats, updates and other issues.
The Software Updater now automatically pre-downloads software updates in the background without interfering with your work. Plus, it grabs the updates from its own servers, so the process is basically much faster.
MyAvast online console which can be run via your web browser also benefits from updates. It displays a simplified design with widgets and integrates the Rewards program where users receive Karma points and badges for mainly contributing to the online community.
Streamlined and smart GUI
At a first glance, avast! Free Antivirus 2015 hasn?t changed much since its previous 2014 version. This has to do with the fact that the developers from avast! have implemented some new features while delivering the same user-friendly environment that you got used to.
Actually, the newly reshaped GUI looks even more intuitive and follows the lines of the new trend in terms of flat design. While the old build gives you the possibility to make the panel with the key fe... Read more
Real Protection Does not come free !
Zemana says that WSA is already protecting explorer.exe, so it will not. Does that mean that WSA is encrypting keystrokes as part of their identity protection?
If not, can I use Zemana for keystroke encryption? Does it have to start with Windows to work properly for said encryption?
Just out of curiosity, I want to ask you you something..... Is there any need of protecting the explorer.exe by a antilogger software ??? That's the job of the antivirus product. Moreover, I don't remember typing anything of any importance into the explorer window.
I don't know if its a dumb question. If it really is, then enlighten me.
Webroot is looking for users interested in using our SecureAnywhere software (desktop app) on the Windows 8 Consumer Preview. After successful internal testing we?re interested in feedback on any potential conflicts or compatibility issues that may arise on a wider test bed.
We think you will find our security software extremely well suited for Windows8, as the solution is less than 700KB in size and extremely light on resources.
To sign up for the app, please go to our Free Beta Signup page -Webroot Cloud AntiVirus Beta Registration
We really appreciate your help in making Webroot SecureAnywhere ready for Windows8.
If you have any questions, please feel free to PM me or visit our own forum to see what others think of our Windows8 version.
Windows 8 Compatibility Beta - Webroot Community
Hi and welcome.
So potential beta testers of this product can understand well before they run this software, perhaps these questions can be answered about it.
Does this software disable the excellent antimalware security already present in the Windows Firewall and/or Windows Defender services upon Windows 8 install?
If so, what, if any, are the advantages of disabling security solutions already present and active on all Windows 8 machines that have perfect stability?
The reason I ask these is because it seems Webroot is responsible for bsods in the past: https://www.google.ca/search?complet...e+Search&gbv=1
and Microsoft's solutions already included in the OS can not cause them under any circumstances whatsoever.
User guide for SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus, Internet Security Complete, AntiVirus version 8
install & create account
Scan for malware
manage various shields
manage quarantine, passwords, identity protection, backup & sync
using advanced tools
How to do settings
Online user guide
Knowledge Base Articles
URL Reputation Change Request
Date: 16 January 2017
* Eliminated Windows 10 generated renewal messages prior to expiration.
* Improved user experience on the upcoming Windows 10 Redstone 2 release.
* Update copyright date.Click to expand...
Source: Webroot SecureAnywhere
Download: Webroot SecureAnywhere
finally their changelog included something more than
Thanks for update!
Enhanced Malware Protection
Webroot has extended all security features across the entire line of SecureAnywhere solutions, ensuring that all customers have the maximum protection including a built-in firewall, seven specialized security shields, identity and privacy protection, and social network protection. Users will see three new shields in this year's releases to improve proactive protection including:
Zero Day Shield
Powerful Generic Identity Protection
Even Better Performance
Extended Platform Support
Improved User Experience
Secure Online Backup and File Sync
Additional Features - Read moreClick to expand...
Lets hope the 2013 product line performs better in tests than the current version. Thanks for the share.
Editors Choice (Link to wilderssecurity)
The 3 PC only offer is a huge mistake. Not all of us need multiple PC's.
Webroot SecureAnywhere Version 188.8.131.52 (Released August 18th, 2012)
Product Release Notes
Improved Compatibility with:
ConstantGuard ID Vault
Synaptics PS2 keyboard drivers
Multiple performance enhancements
Reduced CPU load with numerous instances of Chrome
Reduced background CPU usage during scan
Uninstall process and performance enhancement
CPU usage when on the status screen
Reduced overhead of background threads while idle
Keyboard responsiveness with Identity Shield
(Business edition only) Increased server process shutdown speed
Significant threat detection and remediation enhancements
Kernel rootkit removal
Heuristic blocking of files with appended data
Context menu scans now support a significantly larger number of files
Windows 8 kernel support
Change journal support on 64-bit OS's
Exception tracking logic
Web Threat Shield blocking behavior
Updating from a previous version
Updated install and update process to prevent invalid paths
Reliability of status screen updates
Added New language support for:
System Cleaner cleanup for Chrome
Scheduling for System Cleaner
System cleanup of Office 2003, 2007 and 2010 most recently used files list
New threat detections:
General malicious services
Enhanced zero... Read more
Let try the new version !
edit: tested it quickly, some UI changes, but the detection is still quite low. I am wondering if it is due to the fact it was run in a VM...
AVG Protection PRO
Installs AVG's security suite on unlimited PCs, antivirus on unlimited Android and Mac devices. AVG Zen tool monitors security of all your devices and allows remote fixing of problems. Less expensive than comparable products.
Cons No security suite for Mac, just antivirus. Comparable products are more feature-rich.
AVG Protection PRO lets you install a security suite on unlimited PCs and antivirus on unlimited Mac and Android devices. It costs less than similar products, but it also offers fewer features.
I always liked AVG for it's simplicity. Very good for normal user.
You get a boatload of features with Comodo Firewall 8, and they don't cost you a thing. It does the job of a personal firewall, and its Viruscope malware detection system has evolved impressively. And there's the hardened browser, virtual desktop, and program sandboxing, the feature list goes on and on. My one concern is the popup-happy behavior-blocking system, which really needs to evolve into something that doesn't rely on user interaction. When it does so, we'll raise the rating back up to 4.5 stars.
Even with this one worry, Comodo hangs on to our Editors' Choice badge for personal firewalls. It shares that honor with ZoneAlarm Free Firewall 2015.
Got to love the reviewer comment on the HIPS:
The HIPS system wreaked havoc on my attempt to install 20 PCMag utilities. These utilities necessarily hook into various Windows processes, and Comodo suspected some type of malfeasance for most of them. Only seven installed and ran without incident. All the rest triggered anywhere from one to dozens of popups. I always chose to allow the reported action and remember my answer. Even so, in a couple of cases the popups just never stopped coming. Well, I gave up at two dozen; I figure the average user would get frustrated even sooner.Click to expand...
However in my opinion, the reviewer nails one thing right:
My one concern is the popup-happy behavior-blocking system, which really needs to evolve into something that doesn't rely on user interaction.Click to expand...
Extremely fast scan. Removed many malware samples. Free.
No real-time protection. Missed older malware samples in testing. In testing, some files reported as quarantined were still present.
Malwarebytes 3.0 Free aims to wipe out pernicious malware that gets past your regular antivirus, or prevents you from installing protection. But with no real-time protection it can't be your primary antivirus.
more in the link above
When you purchase F-Secure SAFE, you get a link to download a just-for-you installer with your license key embedded. You create an F-Secure SAFE account and proceed to make your first installation. You can choose to download and install on the machine you're using, send an email link to another device, or send the link via SMS.
Installation is quick and simple. Any time you want to use another of your licenses, you simply log in to the F-Secure SAFE online console and repeat the process?either download locally or send a link via email or SMS.
Installed on a PC, F-Secure SAFE is precisely F-Secure Internet Security 2015, with the tiny addition of a tray menu item that links to the F-Secure SAFE online console. Read my review of the suite for full details.
Very briefly, this suite offers good detection of malware-hosting URLs, but isn't as good at detecting fraudulent (phishing) sites. It earned good scores in independent lab tests and in my own hands-on tests. However, its parental control system is limited, and it lacks features found in other suites, including one found in its own previous edition.
F-Secure SAFE for Android has a slick, spacious appearance. A row of icons across the bottom lets you flip between feature pages, or you can just swipe left or right. The antivirus component offers on-demand scanning, real-time protection, and scheduled scanning. You can also configure it to scan when the device ... Read more